Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said that this question seemed to him to resolve itself into a question of common sense and common honesty. It was also a question of considerable importance; and if an associate judge must, of necessity, sit on the bench of the court of common pleas, why, the court must adjourn if he should not happen to be there, and thus great inconvenience might be the result.

What, said Mr. M., is the history of thts matter in Pennsylvania, since the year 1809 ? There have been abundant instances of president judges holding these courts by themselves. And, let me ask, have there ever been any complaints made on the subject either to the legislature, or to this convention? Have there been any public meetings held in relation to it? Has any one offered any complaint? Some years ago, a complaint was made that there were not courts enough, and the district courts were appointed with one judge. Since that time, the number has been increased to three judges, but cach of these judges can hold a court.

The district court which is held in Lancaster county, formerly had two judges, but is now held by a single judge. And such also is the fact in Allegheny county. Who has complained of this? If, then, we have the experience of thirty years before us during which the legislature has constantly been carrying on the system in this way, I ask why is it thought necessary at this time that we should insert a provision in the constitution declaring that a single judge shall not sit alone on the trial of cases?

But gentlemen tell us, that there must be some common sense on the bench of these courts, as well as sound legal acquirements. Be it so. I have no objection to that;-but what must the associate judges do in the trial of a cause? Does the gentleman from Beaver county (Mr. Dickey) expect them to charge the jury, and to lay down the law different to what the president judge does? Does the gentleman expect that there are to be two charges-one being one way, and the other another. There must be such instructions given by the court as can be inquired into by a higher court, if either party should think proper to carry the case up. But if there are to be two instructions, which is to be the subject of the writ of error? Which can you over-haul in the higher court?

What then does the gentleman wish? Does he desire that the associate judges should be compelled to sit upon the bench, to hold a sort of chit chat with the president judges, to enter into details as to the characters and pursuits of the witnesses and parties engaged-and to make known to them the friendships or the enmities which may exist in that neighborhood? If so, I think a little reflection cannot fail to satisfy him that such officers are not necessary.

Take the matter in any point of view in which it can be placed, I ask what is the use of the associate judges on the bench of the court of common pleas? If his opinion on the trial of any cause, should differ from that of the president, it is not liable to be over-hauled, unless there are two of them; and if his opinion coincides with that of the president, it adds nothing to it. So that suitors are put in greater jeopardy when associate judges are present than when they are not.

I believe that the judicial history of the state of Pennsylvania shows that the system heretofore pursued has been satisfactory to the people;

and surely, if it had not been so, it never would have been agreed to by successive legislatures for a space of more than thirty years. If the people of Lancaster or Allegheny county did not like this system, they would have petitioned the legislature for its alteration. They, however, have been silent; so far as I know, there have not been any complaints made, and I believe that the people there are quite contented.

Mr. SCOTT said, he was afraid he should feel himself compelled to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey). And, said Mr. S., I will state in a few words the reasons why I shall be obliged to do so.

In the first place, let me call the attention of the convention to the terms of the amendment, in order that we may see what construction they are capable of receiving. It says:

"The governor shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint two associate judges in each county who, during their continuance in office, shall reside in the county. A president judge shall be nominated, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, be appointed in each judicial district who, during his continuance in office, shall reside therein. The president and associate judges, any two of whom shall be a quorum, shall compose the respective courts of common pleas."

Here, the language is imperative. The governor shall do all this. Well, sir, this is the present organization of your courts of common pleas. You have a president judge in each judicial district, and you have two associate judges. I am not sure whether the adoption of the amendment would not at once involve the constitutional legislation out of office of the existing president and associate judges; because if, by your schedule or in any other way, you leave any of your existing president and associate judges in office, then it is clear that this constitutional amendment can not be complied with by the governor. The language of it, as you will perceive, is absolute and peremptory. The governor shall, &c.

Now, you can not have these appointments made, unless you get rid, in the first place, of every president and every associate judge in the commonwealth. If it is the object of the gentleman from Beaver to preserve the associate principle, he should alter the language of the amendment, and he should say something like this :

"That at all times hereafter two associate judges shall be preserved on the bench of the commonwealth."

Our votes are claimed in favor of this amendment on the ground, that if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne (Mr. Woodward) without this addition, it will intimate a wish that the associate judges should hereafter be dispensed with. For my own part, I do not think that this result will follow; because, in that particular, the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne, is precisely the same thing as the fourth section of the fifth article of the constitution of 1790, which was struck out on first reading in committee of the whole. Under that fourth section, it was competent for the legislature either to dispense with the associate judges or to increase the number;-to make them either learned or unlearned, and to do with them exactly as they might think proper.

"Until otherwise directed by law," says the section, "the several courts of common pleas shall be established in following manner"-and

then it goes on to state the organization. Under the language of this section, therefore, all the power which I have reference to, was clearly given; and yet for the period of fifty years, the legislature of Pennsylvania has not been found inclined to dispense with the associate judges; although in some parts of the commonwealth where it has been thought necessary, the system has been improved upon by requiring the associate judges to be learned in the law.

I, for one, think it would be better to leave this matter to be acted upon in the report of the committee on the schedule. At all events, I must vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver at this time, notwithstanding the ability with which he has pressed its adoption.

And the question was then taken.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to amend the amendment by striking therefrom all after the word "appointed," where it last occurs?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY and Mr. CLARKE, of Beaver, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS—Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Magee, Mann, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Pennypacker, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Scheets, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Sill, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, White, Woodward, Sergeant, President-85. NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Dickey, Donnell, Forward, Fuller, Gilmore, Harris, Henderson, of Allegheny, Houpt, Hyde, Kerr, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Cahen, Montgomery, Overfield, Pollock, Reigart, Saeger, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Taggart, Weidman, Young-30. So the amendment to the amendinent was agreed to.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the amendment as amended?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY and Mr. GEARHART, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Barnitz, Bigelow, Bonham, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Dauphin, Cochran, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donnell, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hays, Hiseter, Keim, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Magee, Mann, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Pollock, Ritter, Royer, Saeger, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stickel, Sergeant, President-44.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cope, Cox, Crain, Darlington, Darrah, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Harris, Hayhurst, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kennedy, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Merrill, Nevin, Payne, Pennypacker, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Rogers, Russell, Scheetz, Scott, Sellers, Serrill, Sill, Sterigere, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young-74.

So the question was determined in the negative.

And the question then recurring,

Will the convention agree to the amendment as amended?
It was determined in the affirmative without a division.
So the section as amended, was agreed to.

A motion was made by Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny,

To amend the report of the committee by inserting the following new section, viz:

"No judge of any court of record shall be eligible to any other office in this commonwealth, until after the expiration of one year from and after the time when he shall have ceased to hold the said office."

Mr. FORWARD said, that when this article was under discussion in committee of the whole at Harrisburg, he had brought to notice the proposition which he had now offered. It was not his intention to repeat any part of the remarks he made at that time, in favor of the adoption of such an amendment to the constitution. He would simply ask that the years and nays might be called, so that he might have an opportunity of recording his name.

A motion was made by Mr. PORTER of Northampton,

To amend the section by striking therefrom the words "after the expiration of one year from and after the time when.”

Which said motion was rejected.

And the question then recurring,

Will the convention agree to the said section?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FORWARD and Mr. MARTIN, and are as follow, viz :

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chambers, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Ingersoll, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Purviance, Read, Riter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, White, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-53.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bondham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Dickey, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Ritter, Seager, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smyth, of Columbia, Smith, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weidman-66

So the amendment was rejected.

A motion was made by Mr. Forward.

To amend the said report by inserting the following new section, viz : "The legislature shall provide by law for the appointment of commissioners to take the depositions of witnesses in cases of complaints made against any of the judges of the supreme court or inferior courts, and the depositions of witnesses thus taken may be read on the trial of the party accused, or on the investigation of complaints made to the legisla

ture against him, unless he shall specially demand the personal attendance of such witnesses."

Mr. FORWARD said, he wished to say a very few words on the subject of this amendment.

While, continued Mr. F., I would adopt every necessary measure to preserve the independence of the judiciary, I would also make them acceptable to the people; so that in case a judge should prove incompetent for his duties, or should misbehave himself either in or out of office, every facility, which the public interests might demand, for inquiry into any complaints that might be made, may be afforded.

By this amendment commissioners are to be appointed to take the depositions of witnesses, who might otherwise be called to the seat of government to testify against the accused. By this means a judge would have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses at home. The amendment secures to him the privilege of calling for the attendance of witnesses at the seat of government, if he should think that it is requisite for him to do so. It secures to him the privilege either of confronting at home the witnesses who may be brought against him, or of requiring their personal attendance at the seat of government, as he may choose. No injury can result to the accused party by the adoption of a provision of this nature, while great inconvenience as well as public expense would be saved.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said he would suggest to the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Forward) that a provision making it dependent on the will of the judge, whether the witnesses should attend at the seat of gov ernment or not, would be entirely unavailing. If any amendment of the kind is inserted in the constitution, said Mr. M., it should provide that for reasonable cause shown, the attendance of the witnesses should be required. Of course, it will not be the interest of the judge to afford any facility for carrying on a prosecution against him, which may be attended with very serious results. I say, therefore, that there ought to be reasonable cause shewn; and that, otherwise, the amendment will be unavailing.

Mr. FORWARD said, he believed that those gentlemen who had been in the legislature when these investigations into the characters of judges had been carried on, would bear witness that, in nine cases out of ten, the depositions of witnesses might as well be taken at home as at Harris

The amandment, said Mr. F., provides that the depositions shall be taken at home where the judge can cross-examine the witnesses. The testimony will be taken there; but if he requires their attendance, they may be brought to the seat of government. But I do not think that, under such a provision, any man would dare, from mere caprice, to bring a man to the seat of government simply for the purpose of proving the same facts, which might be as well and as satisfactorily proved at home; and, indeed, the very exhibition of such a caprice on the part of the judge would have a tendency to alienate the feelings of the legislature, and to create a spirit unfavorable to him in the very body whose duty it would be to pass judgment upon him.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, said this appeared to be an amendment, striking at one of the most important principles in the law of evi